The AntiBush
By mw | Related entries in 2008 Election, Elections, Hillary
I read Kyle Michaelis’ posts at the New Nebraska Network for local Nebraska perspective on my preferred presidential candidate – Chuck Hagel. In two recent posts he focused on Hagel’s presidential prospects: Chuck Hagel’s Identity Crisis and “Signs of Life in “Hagel for President??”. Kyle’s assessment:
“It’s certainly possible, however, that the Republican establishment… is starting to wake to just how dire a situation they face in 2008 – to the point that they’d welcome a candidate like Hagel who could never truly be called an “anti-War” candidate but who might be able to pass himself off as “anti-Bush”… Assuming such an “anti-Bush” candidate could survive a primary, that would be a pretty strong credential to carry in to the general election when two-thirds of the country actively disapproves of Bush’s job performance.”
I could take issues with a couple of Kyle’s points, most notably his assertion that Hagel could not be called an “anti-war” candidate. He certainly could, and is, and should. He actually has more credibility in that regard than two of the three leading Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. However, I completely agree with Kyle’s major point with this one modification -
The next President will not simply be anti-Bush as Kyle outlines. The next president, whether Republican or Democrat, will be “The AntiBush”. The electorate always grows weary of two-term presidents and tends to gravitate toward their optical opposite. That electoral sense is magnified ten-fold with this administration. There is such a high degree of antipathy, exhaustion, and loathing for this President and this administration, that the electorate will reach for a perceived polar opposite like a drowning man reaching for a bit of floating debris. I suspect that this is the underlying reason for Clinton’s strength in the Democratic party. Clinton/Bush opposition is hard-wired in the names themselves. You can see it any Republican/Democratic partisan argument which inevitably devolves to “Oh yeah? Well Bush did this!” – “Oh yeah? Well Clinton did that!” – “Oh yeah? Well Bush did this!” – “Oh yeah? Well Clinton did that!” ad nauseum. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party AntiBush.
Republicans will also nominate an AntiBush. No less a Republican luminary than Newt Gingrich has said that Republicans will have to run against Bush to succeed. While we are going to see a number of “born-again” anti-Bush Republicans before the primary season is over, there is only one credible candidate who can fill the shoes of The Republican AntiBush (two if you count Ron Paul, which – as much as I like him – I don’t).
Richard Nixon used to invoke the specter of a “silent majority” looming in the electorate that would emerge in elections to support his policies. To a large degree, he was right. The “silent majority” was there, and did support him, right up until the time he betrayed them and their conservative sensibilities. I can offer no supporting documentation, but I suspect there is an “embarrassed majority” out there, both within the Republican Party and the electorate at large. The “embarrassed majority” voted for Bush, regrets it, and has yet to be heard from in a meaningful way within the GOP ranks. Perhaps the “none of the above” preference in a recent AP poll of Republicans is indicative of the “embarrassed majority” that will rally behind a Hagel candidacy.
I have no idea what Chuck Hagel will do about running for President. I do know what he should do. He should run. He should run as a Republican. He should run as a Republican that can restore the party to the bedrock conservative tradition of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. He should run as a Republican that can restore the fusionist alliance between fiscal and social conservatives that is pre-requisite to any Republican electoral success. He should run as an anti-war Republican. He should run as The Republican AntiBush.
excerpted from and continued at “Divided We Stand United We Fall”
This entry was posted on Monday, August 6th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Elections, Hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Conservatives can keep waiting for Hagel, or Thompson, or Gingrich to drop down from on high and join the race and see how they fare, or they can get behind the candidate who is already running, has 30,000+ motivated volunteers (see Meetup.com), is already on the right side of the Iraq war, and is already the “fusionist” candidate with nearly impeccable fiscal and social conservative views.
Stand up for liberty — join us in supporting Ron Paul.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Wouldn’t Ron Paul bring about a Goldwater/Reagen like Republican administration? Why do you not count him as an “AntiBush?”
August 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Actually I do count Paul as an “AntiBush”. Just not “The AntiBush.”In fact, I actually agree more with Ron Paul’s positions overall than I do with Hagels. The operative word in my statement is “credible”. Not based on Paul’s positions, or his sincerity, or his quality as person. It boils down to my practical assessment of one word – electability. I know Paul supporters will disagree with me on this, but I don’t think Paul can be elected President. Hagel can. It is just that simple for me.
That said, I support Paul’s campaign, and in fact I am going to make a contribution to his campaign and would encourage others to do likewise. I think he is doing great work communicating libertarian ideas to the electorate. He just cannot be elected. His success in motivating and inspiring passion in his supporters may be the only thing that saves the Republican party in 2008 – if that support can be transferred to the eventual nominee. Hagel is the only Republican that has any chance of retaining some of that Paul support in the Republican party.
Let me be clear. I don’t think Hagel has much of chance of getting the Republican nomination either. But if he does get it, he will be elected. I just think he is the Republicans only hope.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:10 pm
MW, it’s a good article. I respect your insight and candor. But I just don’t think you are correct when you say that Hagel is more electable than Dr. Paul. I’d venture to say that Dr. Paul’s name recognition is far higher than Mr. Hagel’s. And if it’s not right now, the wave of passionate support he is receiving will translate into far more support than Mr. Hagel could hope to receive once the primaries come around.
Dr. Paul was one of Ronald Reagan’s earliest supporters in Congress. He is is a true Republican (which also happens to be a classical liberal ala Adam Smith).
As I said, I respect you contention that Hagel has a better chance to lead American closer to how it needs to be (and I would, indeed, support Mr. Hagel is he got the nomination). But I also think that in addition to having more support in the Republican Party, you would find that Dr. Paul would have more support in the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, and other third parties. I am just really unclear as to why you truly think Hagel has a better shot than Ron Paul.
Glad to see you are supporting Dr. Paul, though. As I said, though, if Dr. Paul is out, and Hagel is still in, Hagel will receive my support. I just think that any of Hagel’s supporters will do the same for Ron Paul, something I don’t believe you think.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Hagel himself says he is not “anti-war.” google it.
How is he more credible than clinton? He voted for the war resolution after weeks of complaining about it. On the vote before the war resolution the Senate considered a measure that would have made it more difficult for Bush to commit troops. Hagel voted against that too!
He is a duplicitous politician with a messianic complex who talks about himself in the third person. Weird.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Matt,
I think the only thing we disagree about is who has the better name recognition and the greater potential draw from independents and Dems. I don’t think there have been any polls on that (both candidates currently being marginalized by the MSM), so it is just a matter of opinion. Time will tell. Pauls recognition comes exclusively from the debates. If Hagel gets on the Republican dais and starts ripping a few new ones, his recognition will skyrocket. Right or wrong, Hagel is considered a “serious” candidate by the MSM, while Paul is not there yet.
I do think there is or should be a significant overlap between Hagel and Paul supporters. My observation is that both constituencies tend to be more issue/objective oriented rather than personalty driven. For either, the most important tactic right now is to get Independents, Libertarians, and even Democrats to register Republican for the primaries. I explored this meme in an earlier post which I’ll just quote here:
August 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
bruin606,
Thanks for the comment. Everyone has their role to play, including the PDW (Partisan Dead Weight). Their role, from either party, is to not do anything except to continue to provide ballast by canceling each other out.
The small independent minority of the electorate that is not “Independent in Name Only” and actually will change their vote between parties based on what is good for the country cannot have an effect unless the PDW is roughly balanced and the independent sliver in the middle votes more or less in concert. That is what happened in the 2006 mid-terms. For those Independents I offer this argument:
That is what I think the real moderate independents should do. I am not asking it of partisan dead weight.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Why would a moderate independent be interested in voting for someone whose positions are to completely eliminate every government department that is not directly involved in defense, border control and the three main branches of government? Most Americans have the common sense to realize that they do not as individuals have the time or resources to stand up to large corporate interests that would have free rein under Ron Paul’s philosophy.
And there’s this bit to which I have one answer
August 8th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Although exaggerating his positions, and grossly overstating the risks from large corporate interests under a Ron Paul administration (Corporations get much more benefit, breaks, and influence from a Big Government/ Big Business Republican like Bush than they would ever get under a free marketeer like Paul), Jim does put his finger squarely on the problem about the electability of Ron Paul.
Hagel has to get into this race.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Why would a moderate independent be interested in voting for someone whose positions are to completely eliminate every government department that is not directly involved in defense, border control and the three main branches of government? Most Americans have the common sense to realize that they do not as individuals have the time or resources to stand up to large corporate interests that would have free rein under Ron Paul’s philosophy.
Thank you, Jim. I respect many of Paul’s positions, but his glib insistence that eliminating nearly all government agencies will solve our problems is naive at best. The American public may be skeptical (rightfully so) of those agencies’ effectiveness, but I think the majority of people realize that simply shutting those down will cause more problems than it solves.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
The overstatement isn’t that great. What businesses wouldn’t be happy with the elimination of the FDA, FTC, EPA and OSHA? Do you think the general public would be pleased with those actions or his desire to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?
March 26th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
[...] a Republican or Independent in order to maintain divided government into 2009. I was pushing Chuck Hagel until he flaked out, which left me with Ron Paul by default, but I really hoped Bloomberg would [...]